Random Attractor for Stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose Equations with Additive Noise

Chi Phan; Yuncheng You

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Random Attractor for Stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose Equations with Additive Noise

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a unique random attractor for the stochastic Hindmarsh–Rose equations with additive noise in $L^2$ on bounded $n\le 2$ domains.

desk verdict A legitimate additive-noise extension of the authors' earlier random-attractor result, but the proof has a load-bearing inequality with the wrong direction at (2.13), so the central theorem is not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00727 v3 pith:7FNQ4WTH submitted 2019-09-02 math.AP

Chi Phan , Yuncheng You This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35K5535Q8037L3037L5537N2535B4060H1592B20

keywords stochasticHindmarsh-RoseequationsrandomattractoradditivenoisepullbackabsorbingsetasymptoticcompactnessOrnstein-Uhlenbeckprocessneuronalburstingdynamicalsystem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper seeks to show that the stochastic Hindmarsh–Rose equations—three coupled reaction–diffusion equations for neuronal membrane potential, spiking, and bursting, driven by additive white noise—have a unique random attractor in the space $H=L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^3)$ on bounded domains of dimension $n\le 2$. If the proof is correct, the noisy system is dissipative in the pullback sense even though the cubic term $u^3$ injects energy: every bounded tempered set of initial data is eventually drawn into a bounded absorbing ball, and the dynamics compacts to an invariant random set that attracts all such data. The argument works for all positive parameter values and any real reference potential $c$, so the conclusion is not confined to a special parameter regime. The main theorem is stated as Theorem 3.2 and rests on a two-step strategy: subtract the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process to convert the SPDE into a random PDE, then prove pullback absorbing and pullback asymptotic compactness via weighted energy estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the abstract Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process $\Gamma^h(\theta_t\omega)=(h_1\Gamma_1,h_2\Gamma_2,h_3\Gamma_3)$ defined by $d\Gamma_i=-\kappa\Gamma_i dt+dW_i$. Subtracting it from the solution $(u,v,z)$ converts the stochastic PDE into the random PDE (2.2)–(2.4), which is then studied pathwise. The estimates are organized around a weighted $L^2$-energy with weight $c_1=\frac1b(2\beta^2+\frac{11}{8})$ on the $U$-component; the cubic term $au^2-bu^3$ is turned into quartic dissipation, which produces the pullback absorbing ball. Uniform Gronwall estimates on $\|\nabla G\|^2$ then give a pullback bound in $E=H^1$, and the compact embedding $E\hookrightarrow H$ supplies the pullback asymptotic compactness needed for the attractor criterion (Theorem 1.8). The reduction to $n\le 2$ enters through the Sobolev embedding $H^1(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^\infty(\Omega)$, used to control the term $-2\beta\int_\Omega u\nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx$.

What would settle it

Evaluate the displayed inequality at a single point: with $U=1$ and $\Gamma_1^h=0$, the claimed bound $(U+\Gamma_1^h)^4\ge 8(U^4+(\Gamma_1^h)^4)$ reads $1\ge 8$, which is false. A direct check of whether the subsequent chain from (2.12) to (2.15) can be repaired with a different constant, or with a term like $-\frac38\int_\Omega U^4 dx$ kept instead of the sum, would settle whether the absorbing-ball conclusion survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 3.2: for a bounded domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ with $n=\dim\Omega\le 2$, with $h_i\in W^{2,4}(\Omega)$ noise coefficients and $W_i$ independent two-sided Wiener processes, and for arbitrary positive $d_1,d_2,d_3,a,b,\alpha,\beta,q,r,J$ and arbitrary $c\in\mathbb{R}$, the random dynamical system $\Phi$ generated by the additive-noise Hindmarsh–Rose equations has a unique random attractor $A(\omega)$ in $H=L^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^3)$ with respect to the universe of tempered random sets. The attractor is invariant, compact, and pullback-attracts every bounded tempered set. The authors' proof obtains it by verifying the two hypotheses of the standard random-attractor criterion: a closed pullback absorbing ball in $H$, and pullback asymptotic compactness coming from a uniform $H^1$ estimate and the compact embedding $H^1\hookrightarrow L^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the quartic estimate in step (2.13): the proof replaces $-\frac38\int_\Omega (U+\Gamma_1^h)^4 dx$ with $-3\int_\Omega (U^4+(\Gamma_1^h)^4) dx$ by asserting $(U+\Gamma_1^h)^4\ge 8(U^4+(\Gamma_1^h)^4)$, which is false already at $U=1,\Gamma_1^h=0$. Without a corrected inequality that still yields the quartic dissipation, the pullback absorbing ball and hence the attractor are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 3.2 is correct, the additive-noise Hindmarsh–Rose SPDE is globally dissipative: every bounded tempered set of initial data is pulled into a fixed random ball in finite time.
The random attractor $A(\omega)$ is invariant under the cocycle and compact in $L^2$, so long-time paths remain confined to a bounded random set despite the continual injection of noise.
The existence holds for all positive values of the model parameters and any real $c$, so no parameter tuning is required for the attractor to exist.
The paper's estimates for pullback absorption are claimed to remain valid in dimension $n=3$, but the compactness step uses $H^1\hookrightarrow L^\infty$, which holds only for $n\le 2$; the authors leave $n=3$ as a conjecture.
This extends the deterministic global-attractor result for diffusive Hindmarsh–Rose equations to the additive-white-noise setting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not ask whether the random attractor supports a unique invariant measure whose statistics match the bursting and spiking patterns observed in neuron models; if it does, the attractor would be the natural object for studying stochastic bifurcations.
The same OU-subtraction and weighted-energy scheme could be tested on other three-component excitable systems with cubic recovery nonlinearities, where a similar quartic-dissipation argument may produce absorbing balls.
The strategy is likely adaptable to multiplicative noise, where the same weighted energy and quartic dissipation would have to absorb a random coefficient rather than a random shift.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper does something real: it extends the authors' prior multiplicative-noise random-attractor theorem for the Hindmarsh-Rose SPDE to additive noise, using the standard Ornstein-Uhlenbeck transformation, and the main theorem is clearly stated: for n <= 2 and all listed parameters positive, the random dynamical system has a unique random attractor in L^2. That result is not in the literature. Second, the proof as written fails at a load-bearing inequality. In the chain (2.12) to (2.13) they replace -3/8 integral (U+Gamma_1)^4 dx with -3 integral (U^4+Gamma_1^4) dx. The required inequality (U+Gamma_1)^4 >= 8(U^4+Gamma_1^4) has the wrong direction; convexity gives <=, and U=1, Gamma_1=0 kills it. The -3 integral U^4 term is exactly the quartic dissipation that closes (2.15), (2.19), Lemma 2.2, Theorem 2.5, and Step 4 of Theorem 3.1. Without a corrected estimate there is no pullback absorbing set and no asymptotic compactness proof. This is not a matter of interpretation; the central argument is unsupported as written. Secondary issues are real but smaller: (2.21) writes integral from -1 to infinity where the convergent estimate needs integral from -infinity to -1; and (1.15)'s pathwise representation of the OU process mixes Ito integrals with pathwise integrals in a way that is at best informal. I would call those cosmetic relative to (2.13). What the paper does well: the introduction and setup are honest, the additive-noise extension is genuinely new, the self-citations to [23,24] are legitimate companion work and not citation padding, and the authors openly flag n=3 as open. The overall architecture is conventional and likely repairable, so I do not think the theorem is false. But the submitted proof is not rigorous enough to check in. Who it is for: people working on random attractors for stochastic neural-field or reaction-diffusion systems will find a useful template and a plausible theorem, but they should not cite the current version as a proof. My recommendation: the paper deserves a serious referee in the sense that the topic and claimed result are worth one. I would send it out, but with the expectation of a reject-or-revise: the authors need to repair (2.13) and clean up the integral-limit and OU-representation issues. If the inequality can be fixed with a small change, the paper is acceptable; if not, the main claim needs a different argument.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the longtime pullback dynamics of the stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose equations with additive noise on a bounded domain of dimension at most two. The authors convert the stochastic PDE into a random PDE via an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck transformation, prove the existence of a pullback absorbing set and pullback asymptotic compactness in L², and conclude via a standard existence theorem that the associated random dynamical system has a unique random attractor. The main result is Theorem 3.2, which asserts such an attractor for arbitrary positive parameters and any c in R.

Significance. If the proof were valid, the result would be a meaningful extension of the authors' earlier multiplicative-noise result to additive noise for a widely used neurodynamics model, and it would provide a clean example of the additive-transformation plus uniform Gronwall approach. The paper is clearly structured, defines all random dynamical system concepts, and uses a standard criterion (Theorem 1.8) for attractor existence. However, the proof as written contains several load-bearing mathematical errors, so the central claim is not established.

major comments (4)

[§2.1, Eq. (2.13)] The step from `-3/8 ∫ (U+Γ_1^h)^4 dx` to `-3 ∫ (U^4 + (Γ_1^h)^4) dx` is invalid. It requires `(U+Γ_1^h)^4 ≥ 8(U^4 + (Γ_1^h)^4)`, whereas the true convexity inequality is the opposite, `(U+Γ_1^h)^4 ≤ 8(U^4 + (Γ_1^h)^4)`. The claimed direction fails, for example, at U = 1, Γ_1^h = 0. Consequently the quartic dissipation `-2∫ U^4` in (2.15) is unsupported, and the Gronwall estimate (2.19), the absorbing radius in (2.27), the absorbing set in Theorem 2.5, and Step 4 of Theorem 3.1 all rely on this estimate. The existence of the pullback absorbing set is therefore not proved.
[§2.2, Eq. (2.21)] The limits of the integral after setting t = -1 are wrong. From (2.19) with t = -1, the convergent integral should be `∫_{-∞}^{-1} e^{σ(s+1)}(...) ds`, but (2.21) displays `∫_{-1}^{∞} e^{σ(1+s)}(...) ds`, which diverges because the exponential has positive exponent. This makes the bound on `‖G(-1,θ_τ ω; τ, g0)‖²` and the definition of r0(ω) in (2.23) invalid; the same expression is reused in the proof of Theorem 2.5.
[§3.1, Eq. (3.4)] The proof invokes the Sobolev embedding H¹(Ω) ֒→ L^∞(Ω) for dim(Ω) ≤ 2. This embedding is false in dimension two; H¹ of a bounded domain in R² embeds into L^p for every finite p, but not into L^∞. Since this embedding is used to control `−2β∫ u∇u·∇v dx` and the cubic terms via `‖u‖_{L^∞}`, the estimate (3.4) and hence the asymptotic compactness argument of Theorem 3.1 are not justified as written.
[§1.2, Eq. (1.15)] The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process is written as `−κ∫_{-∞}^{0} e^{κs}(θ_t ω_i)(s) ds`, treating a Brownian path as if it were a density against Lebesgue measure. Since Brownian paths are almost surely not of bounded variation, this pathwise Lebesgue-integral representation is not well-posed. The definition can be made rigorous only through the stochastic integral or through a suitable integration-by-parts formulation. The informality should be repaired, although it is not the main obstruction to the proof.

minor comments (4)

[§2.1, Lemma 2.2] The displayed integral in (2.20) is written as `∫_0^{-1}` but the intended interval is [-1,0]; it should be `∫_{-1}^{0}`.
[Throughout] There are numerous typos and typesetting artifacts, for example 'compldeted' in Lemma 2.2, 'weal solution' in Section 2, '/interleave/' artifacts, and 'spacial' in Theorem 3.2; these should be corrected.
[§3.1, Step 4] The constants `(C2+32η)` in (3.21) and (3.25) should be `(C1+32η)` to match the definitions in (3.14)-(3.15).
[Theorem 3.1 proof] In (3.24), the argument of the supremum is written inconsistently as `D(θ_tω)` and `D(θ_{-t}ω)`; it should be `D(θ_{-t}ω)` throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the random attractor proof is a self-contained verification of the standard hypotheses of an external existence theorem.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The paper verifies, for the transformed random PDE (2.2)-(2.6), the two hypotheses required by the external Theorem 1.8: the pullback absorbing property (Theorem 2.5) and pullback asymptotic compactness (Theorem 3.1). The absorbing ball radius R0(omega) in Lemma 2.2 is explicitly constructed from the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, the fixed constants c1, d, sigma, N, and the given data h_i; it is not fitted to the claimed attractor, and the conclusion is not used as an assumption. The asymptotic compactness estimate in Theorem 3.1 is derived by a uniform Gronwall argument from the same energy inequalities. The only self-references are to the companion papers [23,24] and to the textbook [29] by one of the authors; these are background or standard tools, and none of them supplies the load-bearing content of the proof. The proof may contain a genuine inequality-direction error at (2.13), since (U+Gamma_1)^4 <= 8(U^4+Gamma_1^4) and the displayed chain uses the opposite direction; however, an invalid estimate is a correctness defect, not circularity, and does not make the claimed result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or invented entities. All constants are a priori model parameters. The proof relies on standard results: the random attractor existence criterion, temperedness of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes, Sobolev embeddings in dimensions <= 2, and parabolic regularity. It also implicitly relies on an asserted pathwise representation of the OU process at (1.15), which is not a valid stochastic calculus identity.

assumptions (5)

standard math Theorem 1.8: the existence criterion for random attractors in a Banach space via a closed pullback absorbing set and pullback asymptotic compactness.
Taken from Crauel-Flandoli and You; used to conclude existence from the two conditions.
standard math The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process Gamma(theta_t omega) is tempered and satisfies the sublinear growth of the Wiener process (Proposition 1.9, Eq. 1.18-1.19).
Standard property of stationary OU processes on the canonical Wiener space.
standard math For n <= 2, the Sobolev embedding H^1(Omega) embeds continuously into L^infinity(Omega); for n <= 3, H^1 embeds into L^6.
Used in the nonlinear estimates (2.12), (3.4), (3.6).
standard math Weak solutions become strong solutions with regularity G in C([tau,T),H) intersect C^1((tau,T),H) intersect L^2_loc([tau,T),E) by parabolic regularity [29, Theorem 48.5].
Needed to justify inner products with Delta terms and the uniform Gronwall step.
ad hoc to paper The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process Gamma admits the pathwise representation Gamma_i(theta_t omega_i) = -kappa integral_{-infinity}^{0} e^{kappa s} (theta_t omega_i)(s) ds as stated in (1.15).
This equality is not valid for Brownian paths; it is a false premise, but the paper uses only the temperedness that holds for the true OU process.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Random Attractor for Stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose Equations with Additive Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FNQ4WTH

@misc{pith2026190900727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Random Attractor for Stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose Equations with Additive Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FNQ4WTH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00727}
}

abstract

For stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose equations with additive noises in the study of neurodynamics, the longtime and global pullback dynamics on a two-dimensional bounded domain is explored in this work. Using the additive transformation and by the sharp uniform estimates, we proved the pullback absorbing and the pullback asymptotically compact characteristics of the Hindmarsh-Rose random dynamical system in the $L^2$ Hilbert space. It shows the existence of a random attractor for this random dynamical system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Arnold, Random Dynamical Systems , Springer, Berlin, 1998

L. Arnold, Random Dynamical Systems , Springer, Berlin, 1998

work page 1998
[2]

Bates, H

P.W. Bates, H. Lisei and K. Lu, Attractors for stochastic lattice dynamical systems , Stochastics and Dynamics, 6 (2006), 1–21. 26 C. PHAN AND Y. YOU

work page 2006
[3]

Bates, K

P.W. Bates, K. Lu and B. Wang, Random attractors for stochastic reaction-diﬀusion equat ions on unbounded domains , J. Diﬀerential Equations, 246 (2009), 845–869

work page 2009
[4]

Bertram, M.J

R. Bertram, M.J. Butte, T. Kiemel and A. Sherman, Topologica and phenomenological classi- ﬁcation of bursting oscillations , Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 57 (1995), 413–439

work page 1995
[5]

Buters, J

R.J. Buters, J. Rinzel and J.C. Smith, Models respiratory rhythm generation in the pre- B¨ otzinger complex, I. Bursting pacemaker neurons, J. Neurophysiology, 81 (1999), 382–397

work page 1999
[6]

Chay and J

T.R. Chay and J. Keizer, Minimal model for membrane oscillations in the pancreatic b eta-cell, Biophysiology Journal, 42 (1983), 181–189

work page 1983
[7]

V. V. Chepyzhov and M. I. Vishik, Attractors for Equations of Mathematical Physics , AMS Colloquium Publications, Vol. 49, AMS, Providence, RI, 2002

work page 2002
[8]

Chueshov, Monotone Random Systems Theory and Applications , Lect

I. Chueshov, Monotone Random Systems Theory and Applications , Lect. Notes of Math., Vol. 1779, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002

work page 2002

Show all 41 references

[9]

Cornelisse, W.J

L.N. Cornelisse, W.J. Scheenen, W.J. Koopman, E.W. Roubos and S.C . Gielen, Minimal model for intracellular calcium oscillations and electrical bur sting in melanotrope cells of Xenopus Laevis, Neural Computations, 13 (2000), 113–137

2000
[10]

Crauel, A

H. Crauel, A. Debusche and F. Flandoli, Random attractors , J. Dynamics and Diﬀerential Equations, 9 (1997), 307–341

1997
[11]

Crauel and F

H. Crauel and F. Flandoli, Attractors for random dynamical systems , Probability Theory and Related Fields, 100 (1994), 365–393

1994
[12]

Dhamala, V.K

M. Dhamala, V.K. Jirsa and M. Ding, Transitions to synchrony in coupled bursting neurons , Physical Review Letters, 92 (2004), 028101

2004
[13]

Efendiev and S

M. Efendiev and S. Zelik, Upper and lower bounds for the Kolmogorov entropy of the attr actor for an RDE in an unbounded domain , J. Dynamics and Diﬀerential Equations, 14 (2002), 369–403

2002
[14]

Ementrout and D.H

G.B. Ementrout and D.H. Terman, Mathematical Foundations of Neurosciences, Springer, 2010

2010
[15]

FitzHugh, Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membrane , Bio- physical Journal, 1 (1961), 445–466

R. FitzHugh, Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membrane , Bio- physical Journal, 1 (1961), 445–466

1961
[16]

Hindmarsh and R.M

J.L. Hindmarsh and R.M. Rose, A model of the nerve impulse using two ﬁrst-order diﬀerentia l equations, Nature, 206 (1982), 162–164

1982
[17]

Hindmarsh and R.M

J.L. Hindmarsh and R.M. Rose, A model of neuronal bursting using three coupled ﬁrst-order diﬀerential equations , Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Ser. B: Biological Scien ces, 221 (1984), 87–102

1984
[18]

Hodgkin and A

A. Hodgkin and A. Huxley, A quantitative description of membrane current and its appl ication to conduction and excitation in nerve , J. Physiology, Ser. B, 117 (1952), 500–544

1952
[19]

Innocenti and R

G. Innocenti and R. Genesio, On the dynamics of chaotic spiking-bursting transition in t he Hindmarsh-Rose neuron, Chaos, 19 (2009), 023124

2009
[20]

Izhikecich, Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitab ility and Burst- ing, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007

E.M. Izhikecich, Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitab ility and Burst- ing, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007

2007
[21]

S.Q. Ma, Z. Feng and Q. Lu, Dynamics and double Hopf bifurcations of the Rose-Hindmars h model with time delay , International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 19 (2009), 3733–3751

2009
[22]

Øksendal, Stochastic Diﬀerential Equations , 6th edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003

B. Øksendal, Stochastic Diﬀerential Equations , 6th edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003

2003
[23]

Phan, Random attractor for stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose equations with multiplicative noise , arXiv:1908.01220v2, 2019

C. Phan, Random attractor for stochastic Hindmarsh-Rose equations with multiplicative noise , arXiv:1908.01220v2, 2019

1908 arXiv
[24]

C. Phan, Y. You and J. Su, Global attractors for Hindmarsh-Rose equations in neurody namics, arXiv:1907.13225, 2019. STOCHASTIC HINDMARSH-ROSE EQUATIONS 27

1907 arXiv
[25]

Rinzel, A formal classiﬁcation of bursting mechanism in excitable s ystems, Proceedings of International Congress of Mathematics, 1 (1987), 1578–1593

J. Rinzel, A formal classiﬁcation of bursting mechanism in excitable s ystems, Proceedings of International Congress of Mathematics, 1 (1987), 1578–1593

1987
[26]

Rubin, Bursting induced by excitatory synaptic coupling in nonide ntical conditional relaxation oscillators or square-wave bursters , Physics Review E, 74 (2006), 021917

J. Rubin, Bursting induced by excitatory synaptic coupling in nonide ntical conditional relaxation oscillators or square-wave bursters , Physics Review E, 74 (2006), 021917

2006
[27]

Schenk-Hopp´ e,Random attractors - general properties, existence and appl ications to sto- chastic bifurcation theory , Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 4 (1998), 99-130

K.R. Schenk-Hopp´ e,Random attractors - general properties, existence and appl ications to sto- chastic bifurcation theory , Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 4 (1998), 99-130

1998
[28]

B. Schmalfuss, Backward cocycles and attractors of stochastic diﬀerentia l equations , Interna- tional Seminar on Applied Mathematics-Nonlinear Dynamics: Attract ors Approximation and Global Behavior, Dresden, (1992), 185–192

1992
[29]

G. R. Sell and Y. You, Dynamics of Evolutionary Equations , Applied Mathematical Sciences, Volume 143, Springer, New York, 2002

2002
[30]

Shapiro, R

A. Shapiro, R. Curtu, J. Rinzel and N. Rubin, Dynamical characteristics common to neuronal competition models, J. Neurophysiology, 97 (2007), 462–473

2007
[31]

J. Su, H. Perez-Gonzalez and M. He, Regular bursting emerging from coupled chaotic neurons , Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, Supplement 2007, 94 6–955

2007
[32]

Temam, ”Inﬁnite Dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics anf Physics”, 2nd edition, Springer, New York, (2013)

R. Temam, ”Inﬁnite Dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics anf Physics”, 2nd edition, Springer, New York, (2013)

2013
[33]

Terman, Chaotic spikes arising from a model of bursting in excitable membrane, J

D. Terman, Chaotic spikes arising from a model of bursting in excitable membrane, J. Appl. Math., 51 (1991), 1418–1450

1991
[34]

Wang, Suﬃcient and necessary criteria for existence of pullback a ttractors for non-compact random dynamical systems , J

B. Wang, Suﬃcient and necessary criteria for existence of pullback a ttractors for non-compact random dynamical systems , J. Diﬀerential Equations, 253, (2012), 1544–1583

2012
[35]

Wang, Random attractors for non-autonomous stochastic wave equa tions, Discrete and Con- tinuous Dynamical Systems, Series A, 34 (2014), 269–300

B. Wang, Random attractors for non-autonomous stochastic wave equa tions, Discrete and Con- tinuous Dynamical Systems, Series A, 34 (2014), 269–300

2014
[36]

Wang and B

R. Wang and B. Wang, Asymptotic behavior of non-autonomous fractional stochas tic p- Laplacian equations, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, http://doi.org/10.1 016/ j.camwa.2019.05.024

2019
[37]

Wang and X.R

Z.L. Wang and X.R. Shi, Chaotic bursting lag synchronization of Hindmarsh-Rose sy stem via a single controller , Applied Mathematics and Computation, 215 (2009), 1091-1097

2009
[38]

You, Global dynamics and robustness of reversible autocatalyti c reaction-diﬀusion systems , Nonlinear Analysis, Series A, 75 (2012), 3049–3071

Y. You, Global dynamics and robustness of reversible autocatalyti c reaction-diﬀusion systems , Nonlinear Analysis, Series A, 75 (2012), 3049–3071

2012
[39]

You, Random attractors and robustness for stochastic reversibl e reaction-diﬀusion systems , Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, Series A, 34 (2014), 301–333

Y. You, Random attractors and robustness for stochastic reversibl e reaction-diﬀusion systems , Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, Series A, 34 (2014), 301–333

2014
[40]

You, Random dynamics of stochastic reaction-diﬀusion systems w ith additive noise , Journal of Dynamics and Diﬀerential Equations, 29 (2017), 83-112

Y. You, Random dynamics of stochastic reaction-diﬀusion systems w ith additive noise , Journal of Dynamics and Diﬀerential Equations, 29 (2017), 83-112

2017
[41]

Zhang, A

F. Zhang, A. Lubbe, Q. Lu and J. Su, On bursting solutions near chaotic regimes in a neuron model, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, Ser. S, 7 (2014), 1363–1383. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of So uth Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA E-mail addres...

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Arnold, Random Dynamical Systems , Springer, Berlin, 1998

L. Arnold, Random Dynamical Systems , Springer, Berlin, 1998

work page 1998

[2] [2]

Bates, H

P.W. Bates, H. Lisei and K. Lu, Attractors for stochastic lattice dynamical systems , Stochastics and Dynamics, 6 (2006), 1–21. 26 C. PHAN AND Y. YOU

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Bates, K

P.W. Bates, K. Lu and B. Wang, Random attractors for stochastic reaction-diﬀusion equat ions on unbounded domains , J. Diﬀerential Equations, 246 (2009), 845–869

work page 2009

[4] [4]

Bertram, M.J

R. Bertram, M.J. Butte, T. Kiemel and A. Sherman, Topologica and phenomenological classi- ﬁcation of bursting oscillations , Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 57 (1995), 413–439

work page 1995

[5] [5]

Buters, J

R.J. Buters, J. Rinzel and J.C. Smith, Models respiratory rhythm generation in the pre- B¨ otzinger complex, I. Bursting pacemaker neurons, J. Neurophysiology, 81 (1999), 382–397

work page 1999

[6] [6]

Chay and J

T.R. Chay and J. Keizer, Minimal model for membrane oscillations in the pancreatic b eta-cell, Biophysiology Journal, 42 (1983), 181–189

work page 1983

[7] [7]

V. V. Chepyzhov and M. I. Vishik, Attractors for Equations of Mathematical Physics , AMS Colloquium Publications, Vol. 49, AMS, Providence, RI, 2002

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Chueshov, Monotone Random Systems Theory and Applications , Lect

I. Chueshov, Monotone Random Systems Theory and Applications , Lect. Notes of Math., Vol. 1779, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002

work page 2002